I would like to share:
- The experience of trying to bring the public market to Richland and what it tells us about the current council;
- How Richland slyly directed $19mm in new debt toward city hall replacement under the guise of "waterfront development";
- A glimpse into Brad Anderson’s approach to citizen engagement; and
- Why I believe the Herald got their endorsement of Brad Anderson wrong.
The Tri-City Herald just delivered a highly misguided endorsement of Brad Anderson for Richland City Council.
I think ultimately Brad did an expert political tap-dance in their candidate interview, where he expressed support for many of the core ideas of his opponent, Shir Regev. Sad to say it appears he won them over because they simply don’t have the resources to have researched things as closely as they might have been able to in the past.
Beyond having closely observed this election, I’ve had the unique opportunity to get an up-close view of some of the dysfunction of the City of Richland during my time as part of a group attempting to bring a public market to 650 George Washington Way (aka "the pit") and I believe this information will be useful to my fellow citizens in evaluating Brad Anderson as a representative.
Prior to Shir Regev and Anderson’s joint interview with the Herald editorial board, Brad Anderson has campaigned as little as he possibly could. His house is on the market and it’s rumored he is moving to Benton City. If he did move, the rest of the council would get to appoint his replacement.
The Herald’s endorsement talks mostly about Regev’s long-proposed platform of the need for Richland to create districts and focus on community development in central Richland.
Brad Anderson demonstrates the perfect example of why Richland needs districts. As Regev has pointed out, the value of districts is they create a more representative and accountable relationship between elected officials and citizens by making it possible for more people to run for council without needing to raise an enormous amount of money and spend a ton of time. One of the main concerns Regev has so clearly articulated is that the fact that 70% of the current council lives in Meadow Springs means that Central Richland is impacted.
Entrenched as an 8-year incumbent, Anderson feels no pressure whatsoever. He doesn’t need to knock on doors, post signs, attend candidate forums, develop a platform, create a website, or spend time engaging with voters on social media.
In this case, he didn’t need to do any of these things because Regev did all of these things for him as he lifted her campaign platform point by point.
And so the Herald says: "He said he supports Regev’s districting plan, and we would like to hold him to that."
Yeah? The Tri-City Herald has already demonstrated it has no leverage with Brad whatsoever: first in letting him plagiarize 100% of his opponent’s platform and not holding him accountable for his lack of a campaign, and second there’s a revealing moment from Brad in the wake of the Herald’s editorial criticizing Richland for handling the public market topic in a cowardly way.
Let me say up front that I don’t hold anything personal against Brad or any of the other council members over the public market. My personal feelings about how things went down in Richland with the public market have much more to do with learning firsthand the poor state of local government in terms of engagement, listening, and transparency.
I think Brad seems like an extremely likable guy. Having seen things up close from the perspective of an elected official, I believe that being a representative is hard work and generous community service, and I genuinely respect Brad for doing it.
I do however believe the role requires one to take more responsibility and time than Brad has been able to give to it, both in his engagement on the public market initiative (as I will show below), and his general willingness to show up. (He’s missed 13 council meetings this year so far.) Regev and Slovic are running circles around Anderson and Bob Thompson on social media. In 2019, we need to be focused on electing people who are going to use the tools at hand to connect with citizens.
All of that said, here’s what Brad has to say about the Tri-City Herald in his rant about the public market effort:
You can find this video in the “Reports and Comment” section of the May 17 2016 council meeting video at 1:58.
If I was watching that, I’d have a lot of questions, so I’m going to dig in and present the facts here because I think it helps provide more context.
Brad’s apparent vision for downtown is… wait—what?! #
We can set aside Brad’s comment that would imply his dream for downtown Richland is apparently "nice little strip malls” but it is amazing that he seems to find something deeply offensive about the fact that the public-private partnership proposed would have included apartments above the public market.
“Apartments above” is the absolute definition of mixed use, and mixed use is central to downtown development, period. It’s also part of what would make this specific market proposal work financially, as it would anchor a massive amount of private investment that would accompany the market, and which would share considerable amount of costs with the development of the market.
Brad’s assertion "they started to twist things" is unfounded. #
Note that this video is from 2016 and the notion of building a public market had been discussed seriously enough in 2014 that Deputy City Manager Bill King was talking about the city proposing paying for at least half of the cost for a parking garage for a public market as part of its share:
Bill King, Jan 26, 2015:
I think Council will be excited about the possibility of a Public Market and we hope they will grant the opportunity to explore that concept. Brian tells me that you are confident your team can, during the first 90 days, lock in on the program elements to be included in the final project. I think this will be critical to Council but the City will need an opportunity to opt out if the final concept is not up to our expectations. During that time we can also discuss additional public support to make the strongest possible project. You might recall that we did offer to pay half (possible more) the cost of a parking structure. We can now explore which public elements might be most useful to fund as we move forward.
City staff member Brian Moore reiterated that he would be presenting to council that staff recommended public investment as a part of the mix of pulling off the project:
Brian Moore, Feb 19 2015:
I am happy to include in my presentation to Council details of the progress toward the feasibility of a public market and make clear that staff recommends leveraging the tools available to the City to close the feasibility gap if warranted.
After completing our feasibility study, we had a number of meetings regularly with staff, which all went positively. Bill King retired in May 2015, and Brian Moore was our primary champion for the project at a staff level.
In October 2015, the Herald spelled it out clearly: "Richland public market might need to be bigger, receive public money."
For context, there was never an ask for the city to pay for the entire project or even close to it. We were told by our consultant that in order to be successful raising money for the market, we would need to show that the city was invested in it, because the city would be the primary beneficiary based on the tax revenue impact downtown redevelopment would have. (As a side note, our consultant, Aaron Zaretsky, is arguably the most knowledgeable person in the US on modern public market development. He was executive director of Pike Place from the late 70s to early 90s and has participated in over 50 successful public market developments around the world since then. During our time consulting with us, Zaretsky shared analysis that investment in public markets have been proven to be the highest ROI period for economic development and tax revenue. In addition, he has since participated in helping to create funds for investing in public markets and has successfully raised millions from diverse range of sources. There seemed to be tremendous opportunity for success given Zaretsky’s experience with an eager and willing veteran Chicago-based developer who had relocated to the Tri-Cities who wanted to build apartments on that location.)
Shortly after the above article, Brian Moore resigned and left the area for a private sector job. He told me personally that one of the main reasons he did so was because the City Manager had taken this project out of his hands—a project he had originally been hired to manage, one he relocated to the area to work on.
Brad’s assertion that the public had no input was not true. #
The public market effort has been one of the most citizen-driven efforts that has happened in my memory.
It is not an exaggeration to say there were dozens if not hundreds of times more people involved and contributing to the conversation about the market than the level of engagement the city is able to get. In fact, Bob Thompson remarked that the attendance for one of the public market meeting was higher than any other council meeting they’ve had for many years.
If the city would have been a true partner (as they started out, under Bill King), we could have collaborated to get a ton of public input and engagement on the project. The only thing standing in the way of us doing that was the city.
Brad’s assertion that we never tried to get his input is simply not true. #
I can produce a long list of emails that I sent to council that I ended with my phone number and an invitation to discuss.
Further, at one point in the process, one of our board members was told by Councilman Phil Lemley that the council agreed together not to talk to the public market group.
I got more calls from City of Kennewick council members about the public market than I got from City of Richland—and those were unsolicited!
There is a false picture presented by the City (and by Brad specifically in this video) that our group was pushing them hard on getting them to say yes to our exact vision and fund our project. #
Nothing could be further from the truth. The timeline and pressure was 100% imposed on us by the city. In our meetings and emails we expressed a desire to continue to collaborate on 650 GWW, just as we had been doing since 2011!
Then the City sent a press release falsely claiming that we had asked them for $16 million.
The presentation we made to City Council stated that our intent was to raise the majority of the funds and we were asking the city to commit the property and to form a public-private partnership.
Word-for-word, the ask was outlined in our presentation to council was:
- Commit the 650 GWW property toward the Tri-Cities Public Market.
- Work with Crown Group to create a win-win development agreement.
- Match our fundraising for the business plan 50/50. ($60,000)
In terms of pressure, we actually asked the City to remove the time pressure by replacing the original contract which would expire in June with a development agreement and to contribute towards planning as a show of partnership. The city, interested in ensuring some kind of development would go where the pit was, had required a "backup option" as we were in the process of trying to put together plans and analysis for the market. Without amending the timeline, the developer would be forced to move ahead with solely the apartments and retail development and the market would be dead at that site.
Still hopeful, we asked to meet in good faith in order to re-clarify and reset expectations. In that meeting, we were told by the City Manager that we needed to right then state exactly what we thought we might ever ask for from the City.
Shortly before this, Port of Benton’s former executive director reached out to me and privately expressed interest in the potential of the Port building a parking garage that would accompany the market.
Knowing this was a possibility, we came back to the city with a very simple ask: designate the property for the project, create a joint development agreement, and let us see how much we can raise in two years.
The next thing that happened was I got a call from Wendy Culverwell at the Herald saying she had received a letter written to us from the city council telling us "thanks but no thanks" on the public market concept. They sent it to the Herald before they even communicated it to our group!
The Herald got this exactly right in their editorial criticizing council for how they handled the public market:
Brault and company presented an updated and expanded plan to the city in February, suggesting the possibility of a public-private partnership to bring the market to life, creating a new economic driver for the city with regional appeal. The council only seemed to hear the proposal under duress as supporters of the plan bombarded City Hall. Brault asked the city to consider investing $60,000 — half the cost of the business plan needed to determine the market’s viability.
And then things got strangely quiet at the city. Brault asked the city in April for a second, 120-day extension of the existing development contract for the property, something not entirely uncommon, and remind the city about the $60,000. The city responded with a letter, rejecting the idea of the public market and sticking to the original plan of office, retail and residential development at the site.
The city said no council member asked to amend the existing contract to include a public market so the issue would not be addressed further by the council. It seems odd that they would all go silent on the idea, especially given the public’s support for the concept and the public discussion of the topic at previous council meetings. It is, however, a way for individual council members to avoid publicly taking an unpopular stance and we suspect that explains the silence.
The Herald got it all dead-on here, and that’s what Brad is ranting about. I don’t expect they’ll have much luck putting pressure on him.
There is another item worth talking about here.
The $19 million dollar City Hall question #
Around the time we began to sense tension with staff and council about the public market project, someone with an insider view tipped me off that the likely concern within the city staff was that any ask for city support for the public market might threaten the city’s goal of building a new City Hall, and I was pointed toward the current version of the city’s Capital Improvement Plan and budget.
The new City Hall was going to be funded with millions of dollars in new debt taken out by the City of Richland with virtually no public input, and information about it wasn’t even being shared in a particularly transparent way. The City Hall would be funded with a bond, and the bond will be paid with Real Estate Excise Taxes that previously committed to retiring City Shop debt and a Utility Tax increase that went through in 2015.
The City didn’t list the City Hall project on the City website under the "capital projects" section. They buried it on the Parks & Rec page, and they shoehorned it under the category of "Waterfront" instead of "Municipal" category, so it looked like the city was putting $19 million into the general category of waterfront development.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most citizens would think a public market on Howard Amon Park might better fit the category of "Waterfront" development than a new city hall on Swift. I’m not saying the city should have put those funds toward the market instead, and we never asked for that or even raised this issue. But it may explain their apparent fears surrounding the public market.
I made these notes as I looked through the documents:
> The City of Richland budget has a line that says:
> The CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) includes replacement of City Hall
> beginning in 2016, thereby allowing the current site for future
> private redevelopment.
> The budget document also contains the following:
> Along with the 2014 Citizen Survey and the Strategic Leadership Plan
> as our foundation, we have responded with a balanced budget. We are
> investing in our Waterfront, code compliance, and technology to give
> citizens greater access to information, as well as, revitalizing our
> downtown and continuing our commitment to public safety.
> ...
> Council direction provided at the April 2014 visioning workshop included:
1. Focusing on the Waterfront District
2. Creating a sense of place, capitalizing on the TC regional branding
3. Code compliance
> ...
> Citizen Survey top focus areas:
1. Duportail Bridge / traffic planning and street maintenance
2. Economic development and redevelopment of core area (downtown)
So think about this:
At the same time the 2016 city council was refusing to continue the discussion of a public market, they were trying to keep quiet the fact that they were putting $19 million into a new city hall, millions in debt without holding a public vote.
Incidentally, that council included four incumbents up for election right now—Anderson, Thompson, Christensen, and Lemley.
Council / City Manager politics #
Through this project, I had the painful but educational privilege of getting a better understanding of how the political dance plays out within the City Manager / Council form of government.
The city council provides input and guidance to the City Manager and appoint members for lower level committees: Economic Development, Parks, Planning Commission, etc. The City Manager and staff primarily drive the agendas and priorities for lower-level committees. Staff handles the work with lower level committees providing most of the advisory and oversight, with recommendations coming to the council. Then the majority of council actions are covered on the "consent agenda" which means they are all approved in one block.
For better or worse, staff are incentivized to avoid putting elected officials in a position where they have to make a public vote on an unpopular decision. This effectively incentivizes a lockstep vision that works to avoid difficult conversations that might expose council members to criticism for things like taking on $19 million in new debt and categorizing that as waterfront development.
Council members talk about working as a team, but part of the reason they do is it’s easier for everyone to avoid public controversy along with the way the system is designed to avoid it.
Finally, I want to come back to the topic of districts. #
I had direct experience as to the impact this kind of representation and approach has had.
In 2011, Paul Carlisle, Adam Baldwin, and I came to the city with a proposal for a development at 650 GWW. We brought 30,000 square feet of tenants and a vision for a building called Spectrum Park, which would be a highly community-oriented building where the entire common areas of the building would be a coworking space, and the full ground floor would be retail and restaurants that would fit nicely alongside the tremendous potential we could see in the Parkway.
All we needed was someone to build and rent the building to us. For years we pursued and made presentations to developers. No developer had any interest in the project despite having 30,000 square feet of tenants with mostly well-established businesses all willing to pay market premium rent.
If city policy over the past 20 years had prioritized development of downtown rather than expanding the city via annexation, local developers wanting to build in Richland would have been doing that in downtown rather than letting it decline.
If council and staff weren’t mutually invested in the benefit of a lockstep vision.
There are a long list of questions about what the future of central Richland might be.
Those questions should not be answered by a council supermajority who just drives through it to get home. Those questions should not be answered by people whose idea of campaigning is to copy and paste the ideas of their opponents. They should be answered by people with an original and consistent message of helping facilitate a community-driven vision for the area.
They should be answered, in fact, by people exactly like Shir Regev.